Science

02/17/2012

Introducing the Narrator.Part INoah Webster's original dictionary definesNarrator: n. One that narrates; One that relates a series of events or transactions.Narrative: a.

1. Relating the particulars of an event or transaction; giving a particular or continued account.2. Apt or inclined to relate stories, or to tell particulars of events; story-telling.But wise through time and narrative with age.

Mr Webster had a different understanding of story telling than is recognized today. He presented a narrative as a factual telling of events while today the definition includes incorporation of the teller's perspective a.k.a. prejudiceMcMillan ThesaurusA story or an account of something that has happened.The RED SCAREIn the late 1800's, the communist experiment began to gain notoriety in nations around the world, mostly through revolutionary dissidents. Marx' book had been studied in think tanks and institutions of higher education of the day and was seriously debated. Having no track record to evaluate, it was considered a viable alternative to the nobility class rule and capitalist societies imitating the success of the United States. The U.S. was itself an experiment in new forms of governance and enjoyed a rapid growth in popularity among commoners due to it's liberty guarantees and to the ruling class due to it's economic, military, technological and political success in it's first 120 years. Even so, as all governments do, it has it's warts and abuses and being a free society with plenty of internal criticism, the faults were on prominent display for the whole world to see. These faults stood out in a time criticism wasn't allowed in most countries still under kings and emperors and had never been a part of their traditions of governance. This was the environment which bred the rise of communism and fascism in the early 20th century everywhere but would find fertile ground in Germany, Italy, Russia, and China along with many less consequential countries. Note: There is little difference between nationalists and Marxists as both always wind up under totalitarian rule. Communists dispute this as an ideology but the requirement for a popular or charismatic leader and the oligarchic regimes they wind up under demonstrate their uniform nature. The only difference being whether the winners of the prize of rule were the instigators or their opponents, generally an agent from the overthrown government's military or national police force.These Marxists appeared to be agitators and instigators of violence with stated goals of overthrowing their own rulers and governments. The rulers were literally observing the effects of communism on foreign soils as well as hear the dissident elements in their own people. Obviously, this worried the powers that were and should worry the powers that are.The Bolshevik Russian revolution of 1917 and Lenin's crew of 6 worked diligently to fill the power vacuum with centralized power and centralized management down to individual thought. Ironically, Lenin absorbed many of his methods and ideals by translating The Theory and Practice of Trade Unionism from American class warfare in labor struggles. As a fledgling government, Russia called for international communists to volunteer in the Spanish Civil war to defeat the internationally sponsored Nationalists. Spain's civil struggle served as a proving ground for Germany and Italy on the fascist side and Russia along with many communist societies from 53 free states in Europe and the Americas on the other side. Russia rewarded some 2800 survivors of the George Washington Brigade and the Abraham Lincoln Brigade with funds and materials they could use in their own country (U.S.) as dissidents once their service was completed in Spain. This occurred between the two world wars 1936-1940. While the allies worked alongside Russia against Germany in the second world war, the commie hunt in the U.S. was laid aside. At the end of WWII, the cold war began and the commie hunt was on again bigger than before.From the earliest days of the cold war with the U.S.S.R. the K.G.B. (their spy agency) were planting dissidents in our midst at key points to influence our culture and advance communist ideals in our society. They weren't the first communist influence on U.S. soil but they were the more strategic effort. These plants managed to initiate and inflate the present communist counter culture in our entertainment and education industries as well as labor and crime syndicates.Everyone with any knowledge of American history knows some part of the story of Senator Joe McCarthy who charged a list of State Dept. public servants with anti-American activities. These people were brought before Congress and interrogated on live TV with very little evidence being substantiated. McCarthy earned scorn for his efforts because he used intimidation and rumor to ruin innocent peoples' careers and finally failed when his attention turned toward members of the U.S. military. Three years before McCarthy gave his infamous 6 hour speech on the Senate floor, the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) investigated and called for 324 film industry professionals to be banned from film production based on their affiliation and/or activities with Communists. Similarly, at least five universities dismissed an unnumbered cast of university professors based on their refusal to testify before Congress' HUAC prior to McCarthy's stint. By 1952, 47 states introduced and passed anti-subversion legislation which still stand. Ultimately unsuccessful, these attempts to cleanse the culture of communist inculcation essentially died through McCarthy's infamy bringing down a justified pillory of the Republican party.From the AAUP's own website I found this revelation. The sequence of events marking the turn around allowing university professors unaccountable free reign to subvert American culture in our tax money subsidized lecture theaters were a series of Supreme Court decisions reversing prior Supreme Court decisions."In a series of important decisions, the Supreme Court reversed itself on several anti-Communist decisions to reaffirm First Amendment principles, and the AAUP issued vocal “Friend of the Court” statements to help the Justices make the right decision. The first of these was Sweezy vs. New Hampshire in 1957, where it was decided that University of New Hampshire lecturer was well within his rights of academic freedom to refuse to answer state attorneys questions regarding the content of his lectures. In 1964, another important case, Baggitt vs. Bullitt, declaring loyalty oaths unconstitutional, involved the University of Washington, once more at the forefront of a national trend, this time in the right direction. The final significant reversal of Red Scare policies on the part of the Supreme Court came in 1967 in Keyishian v. Board of Regents which essentially declared it unconstitutional to prevent the hiring of university faculty as consequence of their political views."This makes me wonder who placed these Justices on the court. Shock and surprise, 6 of the first 9 to contribute to these decisions were placed by Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt who is the only president to serve 3 terms in office, (sparking bipartisan Congressional legislation intervention to limit the number of terms a president may serve) The Supreme Court was captal L Liberal dominated beginning with Roosevelt's court packing 6 Justice placements (sparking bipartisan intervention Congressional legislation.) then followed by Harry S. Truman Democrat who placed another 3 followed by Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican who placed 4 then John F. Kennedy Democrat placed 2 then Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat who placed 2. One Republican in the lot placed only 4 justices throughout this series of decisions. FDR would have assumed a kingly role had the Congress not blocked him on two major fronts including limited terms and court packing. He was the very definition of the leader the founding fathers feared would assume the office and the prime example of what they attempted to preempt by separating the powers of government. FDR fought tooth and nail to overcome these designed limitations attempting to centralize power in a national fascist fashion.While I am the first to recognize the importance of keeping an environment safe for the arena of ideas, especially for a discussion of best policy options, this important principle is currently being employed as the defense for anti-American brainwashing techniques (not hyperbole, actual COMMUNIST propaganda from self professed Communists and now includes their marriage to Islamic propagandists) for which the government and the private citizen pays vast sums of wealth. The college campus is uniquely servile to their methods because the students are committed to being there financially as well as having the family authoritarian pressing them to do well with their very special opportunity, essentially making them a captive audience. Similarly, Public Broadcasting is engaged in the same operation obviously scaled back because their audience is not captive and their ratings demonstrate their success and failure. (until last March, also on the taxpayers' dime)Back on topic.

Fifty years from graduation, their generation infiltrated every part of our culture including all careers requiring a higher education level. However, the evidence is nowhere more apparent than the Marx controlled news and information industry. These are big business corporations and their service is run as a business. In other words they choose their stories and present them in a way that attracts the consumer. So they are more a form of entertainment industry than an information provider. Ergo the newsy phrase, "If it bleeds, it leads." The editors, anchors and producers cannot present every news worthy current event, thus they are required to pick and choose among the offerings presented by their reporters. As a corporation, they focus on the melodramatic entries to attract the consumer which rewards the reporter who focuses on and presents the melodrama. Corporations have always been held in low esteem since the inculcation of propaganda in corporate strategy. In other words, they lead our opinions to convince us we cannot be happy or even survive without their product or service just to increase their profit margins.

This is different than the abdication of personal virtue and morality. News and information corporations depend on the product of the communist ideologue infiltrated institutions of higher learning for their new staff. The industry must hire professionally trained people to present the current events to the consumer in a precise and clear way the consumer can quickly grasp and understand and digest. The indoctrinated college graduates become indoctrinating news industry staffers. Similarly, law offices need researchers and other staffers to write and review legal documents which meet the exacting standards of the legal industry. Again, the current educators are required to have teaching degrees before they can be hired on to a school. Hollywood is a different animal but the dissidents have also been planted in this industry and they also have many graduates from the indoctrinating colleges sufficient that these two industries reflect one another's beliefs and values. Between these four industries, an impressive number of dissidents have been placed in control of all our information services as well as a major political party and many higher courts including the Supreme Court.

Therefor, you must evaluate what is the most successful form of government and which form you prefer to live under. If you have any awareness of actual history rather than what you've been indoctrinated with you will value the original American form. If you then care to preserve or reform it then investigate the historical record for yourself, and do it well enough that you can defend it's principles anywhere and at anytime. You must know 1. what is the root of American culture 2. what is the majority of American culture 3. how has that majority's rule treated other religions 4. what are America's real faults, 5. what are her virtues and accomplishments 6. the values of other religions differ from the majority's (in some cases diametrically opposed) and you are going to lose even the possibility to maintain peace and liberty without setting some guidelines for which values are profitable for our culture. Know how to articulate this information and how to describe your reasoning for the new requirements and standards for Americans.I am not suggesting we attempt to eliminate other faiths. What I am suggesting is national and legal venues to encourage our own religion as well as the religions who's values are nearest our own and discourage those with values opposed to the American ideal of peace, respect for life, and freedom. The absolute necessity of preserving the only bastion of liberty in the world based on rights (not assigned or given by man and therefor not adjustable or susceptible to opinion) requires every man and woman to proactively promote the injection of moral discipline everywhere in our culture. Every other constitutional government is based on rights assigned or decided by man and are subject to the maleable opinions of generations. With regard to the theo-political phenomenon of Islam, the onus is on them. If they cannot self correct, if they are unwilling to correct the radical elements within their own ranks, then deportation, incarceration, and execution for violent crime in the name of their faith is in order. By the way, this is the exact same treatment we have exercised with Christians' offenses.

08/13/2011

In our society, the tendency to approach intellectual conflict with prejudices and with strategic attack and defense mechanisms makes open dialogue dishonest at worst and closed minded at best while providing the incentive and venue for the destruction of moral ideals. It is a real struggle to put these 'tools' aside to find the kernels of truth in the oppositions' arguments. If you manage to do this, you are a rare commodity. What is required is a deep and thorough research into the topic and wading through all the discourse which has already occurred. Assuming your opposition is ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced, and hate filled whether they are or not, closes your opportunities to discern and glean the merits of their arguments. If there is ever to be any progress in understanding and agreement, it begins with an open mind and most importantly, a love for the truth.

Contempt prior to investigation is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance.. William Paley 1794

The higher goal must be to acknowledge facts and truth. This is a difficult point for our youth today due entirely to the fact that so many of our schools are promulgating another anti-wisdom mantra. This one is known as subjective truth. "What's true for you isn't necessarily true for me and what's true for me isn't necessarily true for you." In point of fact, there is only and can only be one truth. "Healthy grass is green" is not subjective. Either its a true statement or its a false one. Opinions are not truth. Opinions are built on false conclusions and limited knowledge more easily than truth can be discerned from the observable facts. However, that mantra encourages the holders of opinions built on preference rather than fact to feel as obligated to express their biased by preference opinions as readily as those who've actually dug through the evidence and thoroughly investigated the truth to gain authority on the topic. In the interest of wisdom and good judgment, we must put aside our preferences and allow our bias to be subjected to criticism on the merits of the evidence.

Finally, we have to acknowledge that no one person can grasp all the facts in macro-complexity, but the best minds establish which facts give the greatest indicators of trends we may observe on a consistent basis. This is where studies performed by professionals and scientist achieve their value. Researchers dig up the best available information while scientist do the work of testing and observation to refute or confirm our assumptions. On the micro scale of interpersonal relationships, we observe the behaviors of those we have relationships with and how they react to our behavior. We lean on traditions and laws to establish which behaviors are acceptable versus repugnant. These traditions and laws are malleable to some extent, but if we are applying micro sensibilities to macro issues, we begin to see a breakdown of traditions and laws that have proven their worth to the society as a whole. Similarly, if we apply the macro sensibilities to our micro relationships, we act in bigoted and damaging ways to those who are nearest to us. One wrecks society the other wrecks individuals. Neither is acceptable. We have to begin to train our young people in the difference between macro benefiting decisions with and micro benefiting decisions in our interpersonal relationships.

In this endeavor, I welcome the examining and challenging of my positions so we can ascertain what is right, good and true. Be forewarned however, I will simultaneously be evaluating your grasp of the truth. Due to the aforementioned tactics, each of us must guard against the immoral influence of personal preference held by our opposition as readily as we guard against our own preferences and temptations to influence others with strategic tactics when our preferential and comfortable positions are untenable. These tactical methods of argument are as natural to us as breathing. We are raised by people and people have been arguing since the beginning of time. So, our parents and our siblings and our neighbors are all teaching us how to 'win' an argument from the time we begin to speak. What they aren't able to do, even if they utilize proper methods of argument is to teach us the advanced disciplined methods of keeping an open mind while simultaneously guarding against the influential strategic tactics of argumentation. This takes discipline, this takes commitment, this takes a love of truth and places it above the justification of our preferences..

welfare debate

In this video we see an old discussion on the real effects of social welfare programs. I chose this one for the stark representation of style and content of the discussion not because of political views. Well, in complete disclosure it is in part due to my views as I have placed this video in my online library. But that's completely beside the point. First, we note that everybody is spouting percentages and study results, but one is presenting a defensive position not based on effect, but based on desire or motivation, the other is presenting the results of the programs and advocating either totally abolishing the programs or as I would suggest, putting them into local authority and governance. The more local the better due to the immediate accountability of the receiving parties to the giving parties. Again, that is beside the point. The point of this article is to demonstrate rejection of criticism or closed mindedness. From the outside (that is from a perspective of not having any knowledge of the issue) it appears to be like any ordinary hot debate. Nobody is winning, everybody is disagreeing and Washington remains in permanent deadlock. However, if we dig in to the conversation and pull apart the defense and attack mechanisms and just look at the approaches each party has taken to the problem, one identifies the errors in applied intelligence to make a bad problem much bigger and worse.

Now, this brings me to the conclusion I am trying to communicate. Drawing from the video a demonstration of bias and commitment to the cause rather than the solution and love of truth prevents real progress.

Ayn Rand; Author of the popular book Atlas Shrugged, wrote a chapter on the requirement for every individual to employ their judgment. Further, she identifies the moral responsibility to extol and inculcate moral standards on society to each and every individual through pronouncing their judgments. I don't idolize Rand as many other Libertarians are prone to do but because they do, and because I criticize Libertarians for their absolute abandonment of moral behavioral requirements (aside from not directly interfering with one another), I thought I should highlight her position on socially moral standards and the need for projection on society of those standards. I do consider her works to be an important contribution to the discussion on forms of government as a testimonial but her perception is biased by a life spent under a government rife with centralized power's greatest abuses.

One of her hardest positions is on the issue of reason and much of society's tendency to evade their responsibility to reason out their decisions, actions and behavior, yet she routinely evades reconsideration of the God question since she was twelve. When challenged with her use of the term God bless you, she claims to value the expression as a sentiment but not as an actual communication with a higher being. Yet she is clear on the personal responsibility each of us must accept and act upon to preserve our culture and society in a functioning, healthy, (self empowered) existence. This society, and to my personal shame, even the sub-culture self identified as the standard bearers have failed their God-given role of defenders of reason, and not just reason but the fruit of reason which is the justification of faith, to articulate morality's benefits, to make knowledge acceptable, to make righteous living desirable, and to make God obvious as the Author of it all.

This chapter is well worth the read.

Moral Judgment

One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment. Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism. The idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men's virtues and from condemning men's vices. When your impartial attitude declares in effect that neither the good nor the evil can expect anything from you, whom do you betray and whom do you encourage? But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess and unimpeachable character. One need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of airs of knowledge. One needs an unbreeched integrity, that is the absence of any indulgence in conscious willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err the when evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire, or fear to obstruct his mind's judgment on the facts and reality, so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind where the responsibility is more awesome than in the public tribunal because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached.

There is, however a court of appeals from one's judgments - objective reality. A judge puts himself on trial every time he pronounces a verdict. It is only in today's reign of amoral cynicism, subjectivism and hooliganism that men may imagine themselves free to utter any sort of irrational judgment and to suffer no consequences, but in fact a man is to be judged by the judgments he pronounces. The things which he condemns or extols exists in objective reality and are open to the independent appraisal of others. It is his own moral character and standards that he reveals when he blames or praises. If he condemns America and extols Soviet Russia, or if he attacks businessmen and defends juvenile delinquents, or if he denounces a great work of art and praises trash, it is the nature of his own soul that he confesses.

It is their fear of this responsibility that prompts most people to adopt an attitude of indiscriminate moral neutrality. It is the fear best expressed in the precept "judge not that ye be not judged." But that precept in fact, is an abdication of moral responsibility. It is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for one's self.

There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices. So long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values. So long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims. The moral principal to adopt in this issue is "Judge and be prepared to be judged." The opposite of moral neutrality is not a blind arbitrary self righteous condemnation of any idea, action or person that does not fit one's mood, one's memorized slogans, or one's snap judgment of the moment. Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites, they are two variants of the same evasion. To declare everybody is white or everybody is black, or everybody is neither black nor white but gray, is not a moral judgment but an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment. To judge means, "to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principal or standard." It is not an easy task. It is not a task that can be performed automatically by one's feelings, instincts or hunches. It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought. It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principals. It can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounce moral judgment whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer why and to prove one's case to one's self and to any rational enquirer. The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard one's self as a missionary charged with the responsibility of saving everyone's soul nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means (a) that one must know clearly in full verbally identified form one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue, and event with which one deals and act accordingly, (b) that one must make one's moral evaluation available to others when it is rationally appropriate to do so.

This last means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debate, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons where argument is futile, a mere "I don't agree with you" is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one's views may be morally required, but in no case and in no situation may one permit one's own values to be attacked or denounced and to keep silent. Moral values are the motive power of man's actions. By pronouncing moral judgments one protects the clarity of ones own perception and the rationality of the course one chooses to pursue. It makes a difference whether one thinks that one is dealing with human errors or knowledge or with human evil. Observe how many people evade, rationalize and drive their minds into a state of blind stupor in dread of discovering that those they deal with, their loved ones or friends or business associates or political rulers are not merely mistaken but evil. Observe that this dread leads them to sanction, to help, and to spread the evil who's very existence they fear to acknowledge. If people did not indulge in the abject evasions as to claim that some contemptible liar means well, that a mooching bum can't help it, that a juvenile delinquent needs love, that a criminal doesn't know any better, that a power seeking politician is moved by patriotic concern for the public good, that communists are merely agrarian reformers, the history of the past few decades or centuries would have been different. An irrational society is a society of moral cowards, of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principals and goals. But since man have to act so long as they live, such a society is ready to be taken over by anyone willing to set it's direction. The initiative can come from only two types of men. Either from the man who is willing to assume the responsibility of asserting rational values, or from the thug who's not troubled by questions of responsibility.

08/04/2011

Recently I posted an article highly critical of expert advice. I thought it might be beneficial to my readers to explain how I spot credible experts. Understand, I am not reviewing venues of information, I am reviewing people I esteem to be wise. These people can teach me how to evaluate data and draw the most profitable conclusions from the raw data. My filters are simple and easy to employ, with two caveats. We are dependent on experts in so many ways because nobody can be expert on more than a few topics and few of us are truly expert on even one, never mind every topic of import. If we are ever to discern truth from the myriad of views on so many topics of such great import, we must first discern who is able to draw wisdom from the available data. It isn't that the data is not available as much as it is that the agenda and prejudice of our advisors prevents even licensed, proclaimed, paid, esteemed experts from discerning what the data means and therefor what course we should chart through life's current events.

The first filter I'll call the BS filter. This is a very course filter which screens out the obvious propaganda and ideology-fueled, false conclusions from all sides of any issue. I pay attention to the names associated with these venues of mis-information so I can quickly dismiss anything they contribute in the future. Quite literally their contribution is more often detrimental to your personal navigation of life, than beneficial.

The second filter is a lot more difficult to spot, but once spotted, I know what topic I can most assuredly receive conclusive information from this individual on. This one is slightly finer and I call it the "Aha" filter. In reading their testimony on the moment they focused on their area of expertise, they testify they realized they had been misinformed by the established wisdom dissemination machine or they were required to purposefully misinform in order to preserve their status with the establishment. Here are examples of a topic which is highly covered but has few true wisdom filled informants.

Close

Lori Gottleib wrote an article which led to a book called "Marry Him." In both she describes herself as a Liberal and a feminist. As a feminist she advises women to settle for Mr. Good Enough rather than holding out and insisting on Mr. Perfect. This was met with extreme rejection by her feminist cohorts. Even so, her testimony included the realization that she was the reason she was alone, she had chosen to become a single mother and skip the messy marriage part since Mr. Perfect seemed to be non-existent, but that she had cheated herself, that a man has much to contribute to her life and that she and her child were missing this contribution because she insisted on perfection or nothing and preferred nothing. So, I learned by this testimony that I could trust her input on the women's movement promoting self deprivation in the relationship department. She was speaking against conventional wisdom in the women's activist movement via personal observations. I still can't trust anything she has to contribute on politics, religion, morality, or even assessing the value of men.

Closer

Another individual I came across is a psychologist who sat on the board of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and who sacrificed his popularity and position with NOW by refusing to promote the NOW agenda when it was refuted by the inconvenient facts. His name is Warren Farrell and his "aha" moment was the requirement that truth be sacrificed for the radical agenda of NOW, even by the establishment media. His politics and conclusions remain liberal to this day, but he writes and speaks the truth he personally observes about how men and women relate. Given his liberal tendencies, his advice is skewed on how to value the other gender, but he does observe and recognizes the devaluation of men by general society.

Closest

A few months later, Dennis Prager invited a guest on his show who not only had written some books on male/female relationships, but began an organization (PAX) which held seminars to train men and women to relate to each other in healthy and the most beneficial ways. Her name is Allison Armstrong. This woman is amazing, but her "aha" moment as she tells it was when her girlfriend called her and told her about talking to a man about why men start out being princes and then turn into frogs. His answer didn't go over so well with the girlfriend but Allison was able to receive it through the girlfriend since she was not the direct target, and make use of it. He'd said to the girlfriend, "Oh I get it, you're a frog farmer. Some women kiss frogs and turn them into princes, but you kiss princes and turn them into frogs." On hearing this story from her girlfriend, Allison had visions of a big white farmhouse with rows and rows of frogs with men's faces starting with her ex-husband and progressing through all the successive boyfriends she'd ever had. Counter-intuitively, she found this empowering. Up to this point she'd thought herself powerless with men, but if she had the power to make princes into frogs then if she could just find out how she was doing it, she could reverse the process and turn the frogs into princes. The result was in a few years her friends were asking her to teach them how to be with men. I can trust this woman's contribution on the topic of gender valuation implicitly. Not only did she have the 'aha' moment, but she successfully used that moment to completely reverse her course along socio-gender valuation, moral and political paths as she learned that men aren't the typical simpletons everyone knew we are. That she and all women can have the spouse/mate they've always desired through receiving with an open mind, some unattractive facts and drawing new conclusions.

This leads me to the finer third filter which I'll call the truthing conversion. This one requires a radical result from the 'aha' moment as the expert investigated further, now that they were on the right track to discovering true information. Warren Farrell was committed to his truth as he knew it and that was a radical commitment, but his stubborn adherence to previous conclusions prevented him from successfully incorporating new information along the same radical path to complete enlightenment. Allison was completely transformed from feminist to open minded willing recipient of unattractive data. She had to toss out all previous conclusions on her topic of expertise. Plus, realizing how wrong she and the entire establishment had the topic, she looked a little further and realized the same was probably true in every other area of social import.

The fourth and finest filter I employ I'll call the 'mutual uncommon knowledge' filter. This is knowledge that is common between the expert and myself but uncommon among the general populace. Since I am most knowledgeable on the topic of faith and morality, if the expert holds many of the same conclusions with the available data as do I then most likely he or she has been through many of the same kinds of trials as I. Therefor they reached their conclusions the same way as I and I reached mine by 'aha' realization, by investigation for myself, and by open-minded self evaluation with unattractive data. I was and often still am my own worst enemy. I must regularly evaluate my prejudices, my motivations, and my conclusions in nearly every topic especially with regard to unattractive data. I can more fully trust the conclusions of experts with whom I identify on this level. They, like me are forced to a continual re-examination of the relevant data and re-evaluation of personal prejudice and motivations. The implicit caveat here is you must have enough experience, (you must have tossed out all former conclusions to re-investigate and re-evaluate the available data in a common area of knowledge) to compare experiences to others.'

BS filter

aha filter

truthing filter

MUK (mutual uncommon knowledge) filter

There is yet another filter and this filter is reserved for the people and ideas that are most intimate to my life. I hinted at it in the fourth filter but this one is based on a common experience with the God we have in common. The closer their experience with God, to mine, the deeper my trust in their capacity to discern wisdom from and through the Bible, commentaries, and other Spirit inspired works. I don't mean their sin and recovery have to reflect mine, I do mean their perception of God must reflect my own, as in God is real and present and wonderful and working on me right now. I value contributions by these people and ideas as the 'Living Water' described in John 4:14. Always, always this information must line up with the information in the Bible. If it opposes the Bible, it is wrong, period, end of discussion.

If you are looking for expert advice on any topic, these are my recommendations:

1. Find an expert that is reputed to have uncommon wisdom in his area of expertise.

2. Find an expert that does not rely on conventional wisdom nor accepts data without investigation.

3. Find an expert that demonstrably improves the general knowledge in the area of his expertise.

4. Find an expert you can relate to vicariously via his or her testimony on uncommon knowledge you share.

5. When you find the expert you can trust, you still need to evaluate his contribution on every topic, especially the one you sought him or her out for. Nobody is perfect and nobody has 100% accuracy rates even in their field of study and expertise.

6. As far as is possible, investigate for yourself the topic you expect to receive advice in, as deeply as you can.

7. Nothing you hear is going to be properly screened without the preparation of reading, understanding and applying the life lessons learned through the scriptures.

Some of my vicarious mentors do not fit this model exactly. Those who do not stood out in their youth as extraordinary, deep, mature, and/or were considered wise beyond their years. For instance, Jack Hayford was a youth apart from his peers in the sense that he was a practicing and committed Christian while the rest were accepting the directions and submitting to the establishment we now know to be primarily misinformants. My mentors don't have to be practitioners of the same religion as mine, but they must hold the same values as do I, especially within their area of expertise.

At some point in your collection of experts/mentors, you come to the realization of a trend and the hunt for mentors doesn't require the elementary stages of investigation. You still must bring skepticism to every bit of advice and to every conclusion, but the general notion of what to look for begins to take on a recognizable shape, in my case Christian conservatism, Jewish conservatism, laissez faire economics, but always always confirm truth via experience and where experience is unattainable, long established standards like the Bible and the Constitution of the United States.

While I have personal relationships with people I consider mentors, here is a list of experts I use as vicarious mentors.

09/19/2010

I'm pretty sure I've already seen this, but as I was listening to Dennis Miller on replay tonight, he read this letter by Robert A. Hall on air. Entitled, "I'm 63 and I'm tired." the letter reels off the many expectations laid upon the wealth makers of America, especially on the generation which was taught to be ashamed to accept welfare. This is an indicator of a healthy work ethic and the opinions of our youth with such a work ethic tend to lean toward individual responsibility with regard to government bureaucratic policies. Unfortunately, the state literally sets out to 'educate' the needy with information like, "There is no shame in being on welfare." I witnessed the state bought advertising on the major networks to get that message out back in the early 1970's. I don't know that the elites knew the net effects of this message would ultimately bring our culture to the current entitlement society and the brink of economic collapse, however given the evidence I have seen of our cold war enemies having placed cultural saboteurs in our midst, I have to wonder. Their useful idiots to the saboteurs have so grown in both numbers and influence that we are now fully engaged in a mostly non-violent civil war. This war does not center on the entitlements so much as on invalid rights to guiltless sinful lifestyles.

Ironically, or perhaps designedly, the very types who promoted the entitlement society are the ones who will 'judge' the non-producing populace 'worth' according to what they produce. Social Security recipients will be judged an ill investment for health care in their final years. Able-bodied welfare recipients will be judged an ill investment for their unwillingness to produce and their propensity toward criminal behavior. Just about every argument they make for the entitlements and society will not only be forgotten, but all evidence of this will be attributed to whatever enemy they can nail the blame on.

Here is the letter I heard read aloud over the air as written on Robert A. Hall's personal blog:

I’ll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I’ve worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven’t called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired. Very tired.

I’m tired of being told that I have to “spread the wealth around” to people who don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I’m tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to “keep people in their homes.” Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I’m willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing Congresscritters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them—with their own money.

I’m tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women’s rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won’t multiculturalism be beautiful?

I’m tired of being told that Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family “honor;” of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren’t “believers;” of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for “adultery;” of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur’an and Shari’a law tells them to.

I believe “a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin.” I’m tired of being told that “race doesn’t matter” in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it’s all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it’s very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I’m tired of a news media that thinks Bush’s fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama’s, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush’s military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I’m tired of being told that out of “tolerance for other cultures” we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I’m tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore’s, andif you’re greener than Gore, you’re green enough.

I’m tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don’t think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I’m tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana. Update: People have written to tell me I'd have more sympathy if this was close to me. It is exactly having seen the destruction of alcoholism and herion addiction in my own family that makes me pretty itolerate of people who are willing to destroy the people around them to indulge themselves.

I’m tired of illegal aliens being called “undocumented workers,” especially the ones who aren’t working, but are living on welfare or crime. What’s next? Calling drug dealers, “Undocumented Pharmacists”? And, no, I’m not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it’s been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I’m willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn’t have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the citizens we need. Update: A few people have taken this to indicate some bias against Catholics, bbased on events 400 years ago. While I think they are either too touchy or fail to understand, I was onlly trying to say that Ihave zero problem with Catholics wanting to come to the US, but that I hav great concerns about Muslims, as a good % of them do want to kill me, or force their religion and moral code on me.

I’m tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years—and still are? Not even close. So here’s the deal. I’ll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we’ll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.UPDATE: It has rightly been pointed out to me, several times, that I should have included Canadian, Australian and New Zealand troops here. My apologies for slighting these gallant allies of freedom.

I’m tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers—bums are bi-partisan. And I’m tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the “Illinois Combine” of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama’s cabinet are bi-partisan as well.

I’m tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I’m tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I’m tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn’t have that in 1970, but we didn’t know we were “poor.” The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I’m real tired of people who don’t take responsibility for their lives and actions. I’m tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I’m damn tired. But I’m also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I’m not going to get to see the world these people are making. I’m just sorry for my granddaughter.

Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate. He blogs atwww.tartanmarine.blogspot.com Update: Someone attached a picture of Robert D. Hall, an actor, to some versions and forwarded it on, saying that I was on CSI. We are two different people, and I am not an actor--unless you count running for public office.

And to the folks who said I'm Old and should die and get out of the way, I have IPF, so will comply soon enough.